Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow APPENDIX. - Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams

Return to Title Page for Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

APPENDIX. - Gabriel Bonnet Abbé de Mably, Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams [1785]

Edition used:

Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams, with Notes by the Translator (Dublin: Moncrieffe, 1785).

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


APPENDIX.

Page 21. The form of trials by juries; a process that includes all which the wisdom of man could have devised to establish, between the powerful and the weak, a kind of equality, or (to speak in clearer terms) an actual equality. . . . All the American constitutions have established this; but, none in a more liberal and spirited stile than that of New Jersey:

“The inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed, as a part of the law of this colony, without repeal, for ever.”

Constitution of New Jersey; art 22.

Page 35, line 12, read “emotion.”

Page 120, the last line, read “a dominion the most absolute, it, undoubtedly.”

Page 124. “Not excluded from all public offices.” . . . . Concerning this matter, the constitutions (as established in 1776, 1777 and 1778) of New Hampshire, Massachusets, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania appear (if I mistake not) to have remained silent. Others are extremely pointed on the subject: not, indeed, with respect to the privilege of voting; but, as far only as relates to their exclusion from civil employments.

“Whereas the ministers of the gospel are by their profession dedicated to the service of GOD and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function: therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding any civil or military office or place, within this state.”

Constitution of New York; art. 39.

“No clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this state, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function.”

Constitution of Delaware; art. 29.

“All ministers of the gospel, of every denomination, shall be incapable of being elected members of either house of assembly, or the privy council.”

Constitution of Virginia.

“No clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the senate, house of commons, or council of state, while he continues in the exercise of his pastoral function.”

Constitution of North Carolina; art. 31.

“Whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of GOD and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or public preacher, of any religious persuasion, while he continues in the exercise of his pastoral function, and for two years after, shall be eligible either as governor, lieutenant-governor, a member of the senate, house of representatives, or privy council, in this state.”

Constitution of South Carolina; art. 21.

“No clergyman, of any denomination, shall be allowed a seat in the legislature.”

Constitution of Georgia; art. 62.

Page 128. Perhaps, toleration may extinguish the spirit of controversy.

Let the liberal reader, in whose breast the wretched impulse of narrow bigotry and of remorseless persecution has never entered, determine whether the prohibitory clause, at the conclusion of the thirty-seventh article of the constitution of New York, be not intolerance sufficient!

“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator, and Preserver of the Universe! And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.”

Constitution of Massachusets; part 1.

Does not the close of the preceding article sufficiently prevent toleration from running to a reproachable excess?

“The constitution (of Connecticut) admits not of religious establishments any farther than depends upon the voluntary choice of individuals. All men professing one SUPREME BEING are equally protected by the laws, and no particular sect can claim pre-eminence.”

“No person shall ever within this colony be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping ALMIGHTY GOD in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person within this country ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministers, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged to perform.”

“There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect of this province, in preference to another; and no protestant inhabitant of this country shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but, all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the legislature; and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity enjoyed by other their fellow-subjects.”

Constitution of New Jersey; art. 18, 19.

“All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against his own free will and consent: nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship.”

Constitution of Pennsylvania; chap. 1. art. 2.

“All persons professing the Christian religion ought for ever to enjoy equal rights and privileges in this state, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society.”

Delaware Declaration of Rights; art. 3.

Surely, this restraint is, also, sufficient in any opinion, not criminally tainted by a passion for intolerance!

“There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in preference to another.”

Constitution of Delaware; art. 29.

“As it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons professing the Christian religion are equally intitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of merality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights.”

Constitution of Maryland; art. 33.

“There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this state in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment . . . but, all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship . . . . provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses from legal trial or punishment.”

Constitution of North Carolina; sect. 34.

“All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion, provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the state.”

Constitution of Georgia; art. 56.

Page 132. Since (South) Carolina permits every wild reformer of twenty-one to aspire to this honor (of becoming the chief of a sect) by having recourse to the imagination and the ignorance of fourteen as infatuated as himself, she may rest assured that, instead of being limited to one natural religion, she shall become surrounded by enthusiasts and fanatics.

Might I venture to dissent from the opinions of so celebrated a politician as Abbé de Mably, I should insinuate that “the legislators of South Carolina have not wandered more than all others from the principles to which a sound policy will adhere, whensoever a necessity arises for tolerating a number of religions.” But, if his arguments can invalidate the passages which follow (passages descriptive of the inflexible, yet gentle spirit that gives religious liberty the virtuous plenitude of its career, and, with the same decisive hand, draws out a boundary to check its criminal eccentricities) I should prove guilty of the most unpardonable presumption, by endeavouring to oppose them.

“All persons and religious societies, who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be sreely tolerated. The Christian protestant religion shall be deemed, and, is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this state. All denominations of Christian Protestants in this state, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. To accomplish this desirable purpose, without injury to the religious property of those societies of Christians which are by law already incorporated for the purposes of religious worship; and to put it fully into the power of every other society of Christian Protestants, either already formed, or hereafter to be formed, to obtain the like incorporation, it is hereby constituted, appointed, and declared, that the respective societies of the church of England, that are already formed, in this state, for the purposes of religious worship, shall still continue incorporate, and hold the religious property now in their possession. And whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves in a society, for the purposes of religious worship, they shall (on complying with the terms herein after mentioned) be, and be constituted, a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law, as of the established religion of the state, and, on a petition to the legislature, shall be intitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. Every society of Christians so formed, shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law; and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship, shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called: but, previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination, as aforesaid, and, in order to intitle them thereto, each society, so petitioning, shall have agreed to, and subscribed in a book, the following five articles, without which, no agreement of union of men, upon pretence of religion, shall intitle them to be incorporated, and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this state.

“First, That there isone eternal God,and a future state of rewards and punishments.”

“Second, ThatGodis publicly to be worshipped.”

“Third, That the Christian religion is the true religion.”

“Fourth, That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.”

“Fifth, That it is lawful, and the duty of every man, being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.”

“Every inhabitant of this state, when called to make an appeal to God, as a witness to truth, shall be permitted to do it in that way which is most agreeaable to the dictates of his own conscience.”

“Every minister, chosen by an established church or society, shall first subscribe the following declaration, over and above the aforesaid five articles:

“That he is determined, by GOD’s grace, out of the holy scriptures, to instruct the people committed to his charge, and to teach nothing (as required of necessity to eternal salvation) but that which he shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved from scripture: that he will use both public and private admonitions, as well to the sick as to the whole within his cure, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given; and that he will be diligent in prayers, and in reading the holy scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same; that he will be diligent to frame and fashion his own self and his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both himself and them, as much as in him lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ; that he will maintain and set forwards, as much as he can, quietness, peace and love amongst all people, and especially among those that are or shall be committed to his charge.”

“No person shall disturb or molest any religious assembly, nor shall use any reproachful, reviling, or abusive language, against any church, this being the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the conversion of any to the truth, by engaging them in quarrels and animosities, to the hatred of the professors, and that profession which, otherwise, they might be brought to assent to. No person whatsoever shall speak any thing in their religious assembly, irreverently and seditiously, of the government of this state.”

Constitution of South Carolina; sect. 38.

All this is not steering at too great a distance from persecution: persecution that has, with few exceptions, imparted life and vigor to the religions which, stimulated by absure barbarity, it struggled to extirpate. What has more cemented the edifice of our religious liberty than the numerous martyrdoms, during the short reign of Mary; a consort worthy of her lord?! Each of these horrid executions was (as Mr. Hume pertinently observes) equivalent to an hundred sermons against popery. And prophetical were the words in which the spirited and pious old Latimer (bishop of Worcester) addressed his fellow-sufferer, Ridley, at the stake: “Cheer up, good brother! we shall, this day, kindle such a torch in England as (I trust inGod) will never be extinguished.”

Page 140, line 2, read “the more indisputably to confirm.”

Page 155. “The superior legislatorial talents of Abbé de Mably may frame edicts more unexceptionable than the following:”

“It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but, for the security of the rights of the people and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honourable salaries, ascertained and established by standing laws.”

Constitution of Massachusets; part 1. art. 29.

“The chancellor, the judges of the supreme court, and the first judge of the county-court in every county, hold their offices, during good behaviour, or until they shall have respectively attained the age of sixty years.”

Constitution of New York; art. 24.

“The independency and uprightness of judges are essential to the impartial administration of justice, and a great security to the rights and liberties of the people.”

Constitution of Delaware; art. 22.

Page 157, lines 6, 7, instead of “lay snares in order” read “lay snares to entrap.”

Page 158, line 12, read “intrigue.”

Page 162, last line, read “Pennsylvania.”

Page 163, line 20, read “legislature.”

Page 187. “Plead in favor of the abolition of the slave trade.”

To the names of Mr. Day and Mr. Ramsay, may we add that of Mr. Granville Sharp; a warm champion in the defence of the severally-violated privileges of humanity. Indefatigable upon his object, he seems to have moved heaven and earth for the sake of his fellow-creatures, languishing beneath a state of ignominious and cruel bondage. Let us wish him what he would deem his richest recompence: the fulness of success. . . It has been mentioned (and, most earnestly do we hope, in both cases, from authority) that “the laws lately enacted in Pennsylvania strike at the root of slavery; and that all slaves are to be declared free at the age of twenty-eight years:” that “the assembly of the province of Rhode island, in consequence of application from the Quakers” (a sect with whom such efforts of humanity are congenial) “have made a law to prohibit all future importation and exportation of slaves to, or from that state, without their own consent, declaring all free who may be born after the date thereof, and allowing the manumission of healthy slaves under the age of forty years, who (should they afterwards become chargeable) are to receive support, as other poor.” This is striking nearer to “the root of slavery:” but, nearest is the following, which deserves to be written in characters of gold:

“No person hereafter imported into this state from Africa, ought to be held in slavery, under any pretence whatever; and no Negro, Indian, or Mulatto slave ought to be brought into this state for sale, from any part of the world.”

Constitution of Delaware; art. 26. Sept. 20, 1776.

We wish that it were possible to follow up this excellent quotation with others, of the same date, from the forms of government established by the remaining United Provinces of America.

We close this interesting subject with an extract from observations written by one of the most virtuous and enlightened characters within the kingdom: observations too valuable to remain (as they appear hitherto to have remained) not actually published, but, set apart for the exclusive inspection of the citizens of an infant empire, and of some particular friends.

“The Negro trade cannot be censured in language too severe. It is a traffic which, as it has been hitherto carried on, is shocking to humanity, cruel, wicked and diabolical. I am happy to find that the United States are entering into measures for discountenancing it, and for abolishing the odious slavery which it has introduced. Till they have done this, it will not appear they deserve the liberty for which they have been contending. For, it is self-evident, that if there are any men whom they have a right to hold in slavery, there may beotherswho have had a right to holdthemin slavery. . . . . . I am sensible, however, that this is a work which they cannot accomplish at once. The emancipation of the Negroes must (I suppose) be left in some measure, to be the effect of time and of manners. But, nothing can excuse the United States, if it is not done with as much speed, and, at the same time, with as much effect, as their particular circumstances and situation will allow. I rejoice that, on this occasion, I can recommend to them the example of my own country. . . . . . In Britain, a Negro becomes a freeman the moment he sets his foot on British ground.”

Page 208, line 6, read “Cromwell.”

The seventh article of the sixth chapter of the second section of the constitution of Massachusets declares:

“That the privilege and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this commonwealth, in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner, and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time, not exceeding twelve months.”

This is not the place to enter into a discussion concerning the tendency of the exception in the foregoing clause. It rests with the Americans to keep in view some late opinions (important when we consider the virtuous and enlightened quarters from whence they issued) respecting the suspension of an Habeas Corpus Act.

It is impossible to conclude this appendix, without intimating a fervent hope (for the sake of those, who once! were friends and fellow-subjects; and, new, as fellowcreatures, have claims upon the best of our wishes) that, if the following excellent laws are hitherte confined to particular constitutions, they may speedily enter into all the codes of the American consederation!

“The expences of travelling to the general assembly, and returning home, once in every session, and no more, shall be paid by the government, out of the public treasury, to every member who shall attend as seasonably as he can, in the judgment of the house, and does not depart without leave.”

Constitution of Massachusets; chap. 1. sect. 3. art. 2.

“The estates of such persons as shall destroy their own lives, shall not, for that offence, be forfeited; but shall descend in the same manner as they would have done, had such persons died in the natural way; nor shall any article which may occasion accidentally the death of any one be henceforth deemed a [Editor: Illegible word], or in any wise forseited on account of such misfortune.”

Constitution of New Jersey; art. 17.

“All men have a natural, inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that they thereby may promote their own happiness.”

Constitution of Pennsylvania; art. 15.

“The person of a debtor, where there is not a strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison, after delivering up, bona fide, all his estate, real and personal, for the use of his creditors, in such manner as shall be hereafter regulated by law. . . . All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, where the proof is evident, or presumption great.”

Constitution of Pennsylvania; sect. 28.

“The inhabitants of this state shall have liberty to sowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed; and, in like manner, to fish in all boatable waters, and others, not private property.”

Constitution of Pennsylvania; sect. 43.

“There ought to be no forfeiture of any part of the estate of any person, for any crime, except murder, or treason against the state, and then only on conviction and attainder.”

Constitution of Maryland; art. 24.

The beneficent course of this law might have proceeded to a greater length. Why should heirs and branches of a family, not involved in the crimes and transgressions of the head of it, become excluded from the merited enjoyment of a patrimony.

“Monopolies are odious; contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce; and ought not to be suffered.”

Constitution of Maryland; art. 39.

“The governor, every member of the council, and every judge and justice, before they act as such shall respectively take an oath: That he will not, through favor, affection, or partiality, vote for any person to office; and that he will vote for such person as in his judgment and conscience he believes most fit and best qualified for the office; and that he has not made, nor will make, any promise or engagement to give his vote or interest in favor of any person.”

Constitution of Maryland; art. 50.

“Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and ought not to be allowed.”

Constitution of North Carolina; art. 23.

“The principles of the Habeas Corpus act shall be part of this constitution.”

Of Georgia; art. 60. K.

THE END.